Association of anticipated stimulant and sedative effects of alcohol with future heavy drinking in a large Swiss cohort study of young men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Theories posit that acute alcohol responses predict the development of future heavy alcohol use and alcohol-related problems. The most prominent of these theories is the low-level response theory, which purports that less intense alcohol responses are associated with later development of alcohol use disorder. The counter-modified differentiator model posits that greater stimulant effects with lower sedative effects predict future heavy drinking. The present study provided a concurrent testing of these theories in a large-scale cohort of young adult Swiss men. METHOD: Data were derived from two waves of the Cohort Study on Substance Use Risk Factors in 2,749 French-speaking, current alcohol-consuming young adult men age 25.7 years at baseline and 28.5 years at follow-up. Participants completed the 6-item Anticipated Brief Biphasic Alcohol Effects Scale with the instructions of the anticipated effects they feel after consuming five standard drinks, and the stimulation and sedation subscales were used in analyses. Associations of these scores with volume of drinking and frequency of heavy episodic drinking were determined both at baseline and at 3-year follow-up. Models were adjusted for covariates, including disinhibited personality and family history of alcohol problems. RESULTS: values ≤ .001). CONCLUSIONS: The present study supported the modified differentiator model in that higher anticipated stimulation and lower sedation predicted future alcohol consumption patterns. This may be useful for preventing heavy drinking and informing pharmacological interventions intended to reduce the pleasurable effects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".